The evidence for Evolution.

[dad]

No, once again you demonstrate your abysmal lack of scientific understanding.

When we look at the ratio of A to decay product B, it indicates the sample is a particular age. When we look at the ratio of C to decay product D in the same sample, it indicates the same exact age.

Speaking of abysmal lacks, you seem to miss the point. If a nature change occurred that affected the way atoms work, it would be across the board, not just in 'a' or 'c'. So we expect the pattern to be in all isotopes. The evidence yells at us that the past was not the same!

There is your answer, long live the DSP!

 

[Kylie]

Speaking of abysmal lacks, you seem to miss the point. If a nature change occurred that affected the way atoms work, it would be across the board, not just in 'a' or 'c'. So we expect the pattern to be in all isotopes. The evidence yells at us that the past was not the same!

There is your answer, long live the DSP!

So you are saying that all radioactive decay was faster by the same amount? Slower by the same amount? The only way your claim could possibly work is if everything was simply scaled in unison, while the rates stayed the same compared to each other. Like everything was twice as fast, for example. Is that what you are saying? (Not, you don't have to agree with the twice as fast bit, it can be any value you like. I'm simply making this clear because you have a habit of latching onto one little thing and using that to decry the whole thing. You can make it a hundred times as fast, a million times as slow, whatever you like.)

 

[dad]

So you are saying that all radioactive decay was faster by the same amount? Slower by the same amount?

Let's try to be reasonable and stick to what is known. Do we first of all know that ANY decay existed? If so...how? You better not say something like, 'well we see it decaying and producing stuff now, so all the stuff now produced by decay always had to be produced that way'!

The only way your claim could possibly work is if everything was simply scaled in unison, while the rates stayed the same compared to each other. Like everything was twice as fast, for example. Is that what you are saying? (Not, you don't have to agree with the twice as fast bit, it can be any value you like. I'm simply making this clear because you have a habit of latching onto one little thing and using that to decry the whole thing. You can make it a hundred times as fast, a million times as slow, whatever you like.)

You are thinking. True, the pattern has to represent one that resulted from the forces and laws affecting isotopes and atoms etc.
Whatever nature/forces that existed would have exerted control over all the materials. The atoms and electric charges and whatnots of that day all had to work together in some way affecting things. That left the stuff we see. Later, presumably, our nature started to exist and how the atoms and things then started to work was different. The amount of (what is now) daughter isotopes in a rock, for example, would have been about the same but the way atoms related to each other (as in a decay relationship) would be different. What science has done is look at the current relationship and used that to explain it all. That is their shtick.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you are saying that all radioactive decay was faster by the same amount? Slower by the same amount? The only way your claim could possibly work is if everything was simply scaled in unison, while the rates stayed the same compared to each other. Like everything was twice as fast, for example. Is that what you are saying? (Not, you don't have to agree with the twice as fast bit, it can be any value you like. I'm simply making this clear because you have a habit of latching onto one little thing and using that to decry the whole thing. You can make it a hundred times as fast, a million times as slow, whatever you like.)

Now you have the basic conception, so understand that as acceleration of the universe increased (when God stretched out the heavens) clocks and decay rates slowed proportionally to the energy added from acceleration. But because you are using the slower rate that clocks tick today to calculate into the past without adjusting for time dilation effects, you arrive at the incorrect answer.

You are thinking like the twin on the spaceship who truly believed his clocks were not slowing and he was not ageing slower. But the minute he returned to the stationary frame he found out he was wrong, that his clocks had indeed slowed and he had indeed aged less. Simply because we have no stationary frame to return to to make clear the error of our belief in consistency as did the twin, does not make us any more correct than was the twin who believed the same thing.

 

[dad]

Now you have the basic conception, so understand that as acceleration of the universe increased (when God stretched out the heavens) clocks and decay rates slowed proportionally to the energy added from acceleration. But because you are using the slower rate that clocks tick today to calculate into the past without adjusting for time dilation effects, you arrive at the incorrect answer.

You are thinking like the twin on the spaceship who truly believed his clocks were not slowing and he was not ageing slower. But the minute he returned to the stationary frame he found out he was wrong, that his clocks had indeed slowed and he had indeed aged less. Simply because we have no stationary frame to return to to make clear the error of our belief in consistency as did the twin, does not make us any more correct than was the twin who believed the same thing.

No. First you assume science is right that acceleration exists. That idea requires time as on earth to be valid. Then you assume that the time at the stars was 'set' by the imagined acceleration rather than being used by God for us to use as time markers. Also, you assume that God stretched out the heavens = acceleration or expansion of the universe at that time. Finally you assume time exists the same in all the universe, and that some time dilation for some reason exists (time dilation in GR has to do with gravity and such..so you also assume gravity the same in all the universe) and reduces time.

Have you any support for any of these things?

 

[Kylie]

Let's try to be reasonable and stick to what is known. Do we first of all know that ANY decay existed? If so...how?

Yes we do.

How? Because according to you, there have only been a few thousand years for stuff to decay, and yet we see millions of years worth of decay.

You better not say something like, 'well we see it decaying and producing stuff now, so all the stuff now produced by decay always had to be produced that way'!

No, I would never say that.

But given that the decay rates we have no perfectly explain the ratios we see, and your DSP idea can't explain it, then you certainly have a problem.

You are thinking. True, the pattern has to represent one that resulted from the forces and laws affecting isotopes and atoms etc.

Yes, I like thinking. I do it quite often.

Whatever nature/forces that existed would have exerted control over all the materials. The atoms and electric charges and whatnots of that day all had to work together in some way affecting things. That left the stuff we see.

"...all had to work together in some way affecting things..."

Care to be more specific here? In what way did they work together? What things were affected, and in what way were they affected?

Later, presumably, our nature started to exist and how the atoms and things then started to work was different. The amount of (what is now) daughter isotopes in a rock, for example, would have been about the same but the way atoms related to each other (as in a decay relationship) would be different.

Why would the amount of daughter isotopes have been the same?

What science has done is look at the current relationship and used that to explain it all. That is their shtick.

But it does not lead to anything that contradicts what we see in reality? Why don't we see those things? Why don't scientists ever say, "Well, according to our models of radioactive decay, we should have this much daughter material, but when we look at the sample, we're way off! And when we use two different techniques to date this sample, they give two completely different ages! This just doesn't make any sense!"

Why don't we ever see that, dad?

 

[Kylie]

Now you have the basic conception, so understand that as acceleration of the universe increased (when God stretched out the heavens) clocks and decay rates slowed proportionally to the energy added from acceleration. But because you are using the slower rate that clocks tick today to calculate into the past without adjusting for time dilation effects, you arrive at the incorrect answer.

You are thinking like the twin on the spaceship who truly believed his clocks were not slowing and he was not ageing slower. But the minute he returned to the stationary frame he found out he was wrong, that his clocks had indeed slowed and he had indeed aged less. Simply because we have no stationary frame to return to to make clear the error of our belief in consistency as did the twin, does not make us any more correct than was the twin who believed the same thing.

We'll add relativity to the list of things you don't understand.

He had not aged less from his point of view. And his point of view is just as valid as any other point of view.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No. First you assume science is right that acceleration exists. That idea requires time as on earth to be valid. Then you assume that the time at the stars was 'set' by the imagined acceleration rather than being used by God for us to use as time markers. Also, you assume that God stretched out the heavens = acceleration or expansion of the universe at that time. Finally you assume time exists the same in all the universe, and that some time dilation for some reason exists (time dilation in GR has to do with gravity and such..so you also assume gravity the same in all the universe) and reduces time.

Have you any support for any of these things?

No, I certainly do not believe acceleration is occurring right now, there is no expansion of magical nothing.

However one must agree that acceleration occurred during creation, as the Bible clearly tells us that God "stretched out the heavens"

And why would I assume time exists the same everywhere? You assume I believe that, E clearly told everyone that only in frames traveling in relative motion with one another where the laws of physics the same, and that in frames not traveling in relative motion with one another were the laws of physics different.

The difference is I can use their own science to prove them wrong, while you can only say "it's not the same because that's what I want to believe".

I've got actual experimental results with clocks that they tick slower the faster they travel. So when God stretched out the heavens during creation, radioactive decay was faster back then and slowed. But since they use the rate of clocks today to calculate what happened faster in the past, they get the wrong answers.

It is only you that is making assumptions as to what I believe, when you clearly don't understand anything of what I believe.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We'll add relativity to the list of things you don't understand.

He had not aged less from his point of view. And his point of view is just as valid as any other point of view.

If his point of view is just as valid, then are you saying the stationary clocks slowed even if they were stationary? The entire point of stationary clocks in the thought experiment was to prove Einsteins theory that acceleration caused changes to clocks. And if the stationary clocks slowed, then why was it the twin who was younger?

And we won't go into the GPS, since clearly if all frames are valid then there would be no reason to adjust their clocks to match our clocks, since their frame is just as valid, is it not?

So I think we will add Relativity to the list of things you will ignore and don't really understand in your attempt to keep your pseudoscientific beliefs alive. Nothing unusual for evolutionist's to ignore science and scientific definitions when it comes to their beliefs.

 

[dad]

Yes we do.

How? Because according to you, there have only been a few thousand years for stuff to decay, and yet we see millions of years worth of decay

Or you see stuff some of which got here by decay, and the rest was here before the present nature. How could you tell?

No, I would never say that.

But given that the decay rates we have no perfectly explain the ratios we see, and your DSP idea can't explain it, then you certainly have a problem.

They do NOT explain it at all without first assuming that the present nature always existed! Heck we can assume a different nature existed also. The issue is not what you believe but what you know.

Yes, I like thinking. I do it quite often.



"...all had to work together in some way affecting things..."

Care to be more specific here? In what way did they work together? What things were affected, and in what way were they affected?

Hey science doesn't so much know another nature will exist or did exist and you want me to know the former laws in detail?

Why would the amount of daughter isotopes have been the same?

Because they are NOT daughter isotopes except for the bit from the time since this nature with it's decay started. Before that they were isotopes involved in doing what isotopes were wont to do in the state that existed.

But it does not lead to anything that contradicts what we see in reality? Why don't we see those things? Why don't scientists ever say, "Well, according to our models of radioactive decay, we should have this much daughter material, but when we look at the sample, we're way off! And when we use two different techniques to date this sample, they give two completely different ages! This just doesn't make any sense!"

Why don't we ever see that, dad?

The models are based on the daughter material coming FROM radioactive decay..because they assume the present state existed always. Prove it or lose it so called science. We tire of your stories.

 

[dad]

No, I certainly do not believe acceleration is occurring right now, there is no expansion of magical nothing.

You do not agree with science then, that the universe is expanding. OK.

However one must agree that acceleration occurred during creation, as the Bible clearly tells us that God "stretched out the heavens"

? Since the stars were created after earth what accelerated? Stretched out does not mean acceleration.

And why would I assume time exists the same everywhere? You assume I believe that, E clearly told everyone that only in frames traveling in relative motion with one another where the laws of physics the same, and that in frames not traveling in relative motion with one another were the laws of physics different.

So the laws are different in space says you. How do you explain the reactions seen in space that appear to be the same? (such as radioactive decay etc)

The difference is I can use their own science to prove them wrong, while you can only say "it's not the same because that's what I want to believe".

You think you can.

But they don't seem to agree. Not like you know it all?

I've got actual experimental results with clocks that they tick slower the faster they travel.

Yes but the issue is why. They say it is GR. They also say that applies to the universe and not just the earth area. You seem to accept it does too, right?

So when God stretched out the heavens during creation, radioactive decay was faster back then and slowed. But since they use the rate of clocks today to calculate what happened faster in the past, they get the wrong answers.

Well, you may be close on that, in that time is not the same. Claiming it is because of a stretching is a stretch. Maybe. Maybe not.
Do you realize if time is not the same then redshift doesn't mean what we think it does out there?

However one must agree that acceleration occurred during creation, as the Bible clearly tells us that God "stretched out the heavens"

Yes, the stars are far apart. But let's not read too much into that. I have suggested for awhile now that the creation stretching of space may have sort of stretched out time also. I don't recall you talking about this until recently. So I am trying to see what you are trying to claim as your own here.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You do not agree with science then, that the universe is expanding. OK.
? Since the stars were created after earth what accelerated? Stretched out does not mean acceleration.
So the laws are different in space says you. How do you explain the reactions seen in space that appear to be the same? (such as radioactive decay etc)
You think you can.

But they don't seem to agree. Not like you know it all?
Yes but the issue is why. They say it is GR. They also say that applies to the universe and not just the earth area. You seem to accept it does too, right?

Well, you may be close on that, in that time is not the same. Claiming it is because of a stretching is a stretch. Maybe. Maybe not.
Do you realize if time is not the same then redshift doesn't mean what we think it does out there?
Yes, the stars are far apart. But let's not read too much into that. I have suggested for awhile now that the creation stretching of space may have sort of stretched out time also. I don't recall you talking about this until recently. So I am trying to see what you are trying to claim as your own here.

We will clear one false belief at a time.

Please stretch out a sheet without accelerating one end of it away from the other end. When you can do that we will have a discussion about the heavens being stretched without acceleration......

And hence radioactive dating is flawed, based upon the belief that things have always been the same. If clocks ticked faster in the past - since theybslow under acceleration, then that would make it appear as if a longer time span had occurred than actually happened since they are using the rate of today's clocks to calculate into the past without adjusting for time dilation. While if they sped up the clocks as they calculated backwards, it would show only about 6,000 years of today's time had passed, using today's slower clocks.

 

[dad]

We will clear one false belief at a time.

Please stretch out a sheet without accelerating one end of it away from the other end. When you can do that we will have a discussion about the heavens being stretched without acceleration......

Would the sheet have stars in it or not?

And hence radioactive dating is flawed, based upon the belief that things have always been the same. If clocks ticked faster in the past - since theybslow under acceleration, then that would make it appear as if a longer time span had occurred than actually happened since they are using the rate of today's clocks to calculate into the past without adjusting for time dilation. While if they sped up the clocks as they calculated backwards, it would show only about 6,000 years of today's time had passed, using today's slower clocks.

Clocks on earth ticked faster?? I think science rules that out. We cannot merely slow down or speed up radioactive decay without consequence. If you mean just in far space, then why would we see reactions here now that seem to be the same as on earth?
As I mentioned science does not claim time dilation that I am aware outside of GR. For example, the Voyager craft were not expected to face time dilation with distance from earth. The dilation they experienced was explained by gravity of certain bodies and etc. So what makes this time dilation you speak of?

The stretched universe?

I have posited that maybe space itself was stretched in creation week, and possibly that stretched time also. Do you concur?

 

[Kylie]

If his point of view is just as valid, then are you saying the stationary clocks slowed even if they were stationary? The entire point of stationary clocks in the thought experiment was to prove Einsteins theory that acceleration caused changes to clocks. And if the stationary clocks slowed, then why was it the twin who was younger?

And we won't go into the GPS, since clearly if all frames are valid then there would be no reason to adjust their clocks to match our clocks, since their frame is just as valid, is it not?

So I think we will add Relativity to the list of things you will ignore and don't really understand in your attempt to keep your pseudoscientific beliefs alive. Nothing unusual for evolutionist's to ignore science and scientific definitions when it comes to their beliefs.

My understanding is that it comes down to who is doing the accelerating and who is not.

 

[Kylie]

Or you see stuff some of which got here by decay, and the rest was here before the present nature. How could you tell?

Because why would the ratios match if they had formed by some other process? Once again, you expect me to believe that all the ratios of every sample all match BY COINCIDENCE! Do you really expect me to believe such special pleading?

They do NOT explain it at all without first assuming that the present nature always existed! Heck we can assume a different nature existed also. The issue is not what you believe but what you know.

If you assume a different nature, then you must also assume a huge coincidence which you have not justified.

Hey science doesn't so much know another nature will exist or did exist and you want me to know the former laws in detail?

Yeah! You should know the details about your pet theory, since it's all you ever seem to be talking about!

Because they are NOT daughter isotopes except for the bit from the time since this nature with it's decay started. Before that they were isotopes involved in doing what isotopes were wont to do in the state that existed.

And once again, you expect me to believe they were in just the right ratios to look like millions of years of present state decay BY COINCIDENCE! You'll have to do better than that!

The models are based on the daughter material coming FROM radioactive decay..because they assume the present state existed always. Prove it or lose it so called science. We tire of your stories.

Prove that your coincidence happened or lose it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We will clear one false belief at a time.

Please stretch out a sheet without accelerating one end of it away from the other end. When you can do that we will have a discussion about the heavens being stretched without acceleration......

And hence radioactive dating is flawed, based upon the belief that things have always been the same. If clocks ticked faster in the past - since theybslow under acceleration, then that would make it appear as if a longer time span had occurred than actually happened since they are using the rate of today's clocks to calculate into the past without adjusting for time dilation. While if they sped up the clocks as they calculated backwards, it would show only about 6,000 years of today's time had passed, using today's slower clocks.

You are exaggerating how much time changes in various environments. It's only by fractions of a second in any environment this planet would have stayed intact. Furthermore, if time was changing that drastically that quickly, you'd notice measurably different time within your lifetime. Additionally, the planet still wouldn't be 6,000 years old via our perspective, since we are bound to this time. What we measure as billions of years effectively is billions of years, even if, in some hypothetical state of being, it could be perceived as 6,000 years.

 

[dad]

Because why would the ratios match if they had formed by some other process? Once again, you expect me to believe that all the ratios of every sample all match BY COINCIDENCE! Do you really expect me to believe such special pleading?

Because it was no coincidence. The former nature worked on the isotopes also, and a pattern existed. Today, all you do is use the present nature to explain the pattern for all ages assuming nature was the same. You seem unable to conceive of anything acting upon atoms but today's laws.

Yeah! You should know the details about your pet theory, since it's all you ever seem to be talking about!

I do not need to know why heaven works how it will work. Nor do I need to know how Eden or the pre flood nature worked exactly.

And once again, you expect me to believe they were in just the right ratios to look like millions of years of present state decay BY COINCIDENCE! You'll have to do better than that!

There was no millions of years and they only look old to people looking at the ratios as if the ratios all got here IN this state. You need to do better.

 

[Kylie]

Because it was no coincidence. The former nature worked on the isotopes also, and a pattern existed. Today, all you do is use the present nature to explain the pattern for all ages assuming nature was the same. You seem unable to conceive of anything acting upon atoms but today's laws.

So it was one process in a different state past that left materials in exactly the same ratios that we'd expect to see from millions of years of a same state past.

How in the world is that NOT a coincidence?

I do not need to know why heaven works how it will work. Nor do I need to know how Eden or the pre flood nature worked exactly.

Then you have no interest in honest debate or discussion, do you? Your position is only, "This is what I believe, and I will disagree with anything that contradicts it. I will not base my disagreement on some error in the alternate view, but merely on the fact that it contradicts what I already believe."

In other words, you're closed minded.

What's the point in discussing anything with you?

There was no millions of years and they only look old to people looking at the ratios as if the ratios all got here IN this state. You need to do better.

Once again, no evidence to back up your position, and that didn't even make sense.

 

[dad]

So it was one process in a different state past that left materials in exactly the same ratios that we'd expect to see from millions of years of a same state past.

How in the world is that NOT a coincidence?

How would forces and laws acting upon atoms and isotopes and resulting in a pattern be some coincidence? You have some reason God would change nature in such a way as that what is here would suddenly disappear? What about the stuff that was happening in the former nature, would we not expect patterns?

What I expect is that the processes in different natures be different, and act upon whatever exists in that nature. Since real old rocks and stuff existed in the former nature, the former processes had to have been at work in the past. All you do is look at all the stuff as a whole, and look at the current laws and processes, and try to explain all patterns and stuff by that current nature! A more intelligent, godly, and reasonable way to look at it, is to ask whether we know the same nature always existed...or not. If not, then stop trying to explain everything with it!


Such a closed minded approach has no place is a debate.




Once again, no evidence to back up your position, and that didn't even make sense.[/QUOTE]

 

[Kylie]

How would forces and laws acting upon atoms and isotopes and resulting in a pattern be some coincidence?

Because there are literally billions of different ways they could be, but they ALL happen to be in the ONE way which looks like millions of years of decay.

You have some reason God would change nature in such a way as that what is here would suddenly disappear? What about the stuff that was happening in the former nature, would we not expect patterns?

Yes, there would be patterns.

You, however, are claiming that those patterns are IDENTICAL to what would result from millions of years of decay.

What I expect is that the processes in different natures be different, and act upon whatever exists in that nature. Since real old rocks and stuff existed in the former nature, the former processes had to have been at work in the past. All you do is look at all the stuff as a whole, and look at the current laws and processes, and try to explain all patterns and stuff by that current nature! A more intelligent, godly, and reasonable way to look at it, is to ask whether we know the same nature always existed...or not. If not, then stop trying to explain everything with it!

This just doesn't make any sense at all in regards to the question I asked.

Once again, no evidence to back up your position, and that didn't even make sense.

Until you can explain your position without resorting to the biggest coincidence in the universe, you have nothing.